On global warming, settled science and George Brandis

Apr 23, 2014 by Matthew Bailes

The Australian Attorney General, Senator George Brandis is no stranger to controversy. His statement in parliament that "people do have a right to be bigots" rapidly gained him notoriety, and it isn't hard to understand why. Lately he's in the news again, this time concerning climate change.

The Guardian recently ran a news story with the headline "George Brandis: sidelining climate change deniers is 'deplorable'". It went on saying the Attorney general accuses 'true believers in climate change' of being 'ignorant', 'medieval' and trying to shut down debate.

Headlines in the Sydney Morning Herald read "Climate change proponents using 'mediaeval' tactics": George Brandis".

Anyone reading these stories might think that Brandis actually said that people who believe in climate change are ignorant and medieval and that he is presumably a climate change skeptic.

What Brandis really thinks

Actually, if you read the spiked interview, you learn that George Brandis says he accepts that is real and that something should be done about it.

His main issue was that he felt the Labor politicians claimed that the "science is settled" and hence any debate was pointless. In this respect, he believes their approach, and that of many climate change advocates is both medieval and ignorant.

This is quite different from what the headlines might have us think about his thoughts on the underlying issue of climate change. For Brandis, the issue is about how science is debated, not whether climate change is real or not.

As a scientist I have always found the statement frequented by Labor politicians that "the science is settled" very unsettling.

In science we propose a theory, we test it rigorously, and we keep testing until it breaks or becomes so obvious that it is true in almost any circumstances that we spend our time testing other things.

The theory becomes more and more accepted, and more probable that it is "settled" although we're loathe to claim it so. The danger of claiming that something is settled when it may not be is that you end up in danger of being the "boy who cried wolf!" should the small chance you are wrong transpiring.

So the pure scientist within me has some sympathy for George's position in an absolute sense, although as we shall see, there are some practical problems with his stance, and the idea that the "real victims" are those opposed to mainstream views on climate change is a bit hard to swallow.

Fundamental physics "theories"

Things such as Newtonian gravity and mechanics are just so right in the everyday human context that no reasonable scientist even bothers to question them anymore. Sure, at relativistic speeds, or in the presence of incredibly dense and massive objects we need Einstein's better versions of gravity, Special and General Relativity, but for day to day calculations Newtonian physics is, well, kind of "settled".

In George's world, it would be quite reasonable for someone to state that they thought Newtonian physics was deeply flawed, that it was part of a world-wide conspiracy to defraud the tax-payer and that the scientists propagating it were "cultists". After all, that's all part of free speech right?

Unfortunately in my day job I am an astronomer who tests the theory of General Relativity and this makes me the target of random emails from (often retired) gentlemen with new theories of gravity and the Universe, many of whom are sure that there are indeed conspiracies abounding in science.

I keep them in a special folder and might write a book about them one day. One of my favourites begins:

"One LOOP of the CHAIN"

LOOP…! LOOP…! LOOPS…!

Which…? Where…? When…?

Thoughtfully I was sitting on my balcony enjoying my Cigarette.Of course I am CHAIN smoker for the past 30 years and am an expert in blowing out LOOPS of smoke.

The author then respectfully asks for my opinion on his theories. In George's world I should "engage with him intellectually and show him why he is wrong". The problem is that we speak a different scientific language. I use measurements, peer-reviewed publications and mathematics, he uses smoke ring observations. A debate is pointless.

Another series of emails from a denier states:

The inescapable conclusion to Climategate and current economic unrest is unpalatable:

  1. Henry Kissinger, Chinese Chairman Mao, and Chinese Prime Minister Chou-en-lai secretly agreed to use anthropogenic global climate change as the "common enemy" in 1971 [1] in order to:

a.) Unite nations,

b.) End the space race, and

c.) Avoid the threat of nuclear annihilation.

He goes on to claim that the accepted energy source of the Sun (nuclear fusion) rather than his own theory of a neutron star is some kind of conspiracy linked to "climategate".

And they continue:

I greatly support your protest. As a former member of the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University under DOE financial support, I am fully qualified to state that Einstein's gravitation is the most flawed, inconsistent and theological theory of the 20-th century. In support of this view, I herewith attach a paper published in the refereed journal "Galilean Electrodynamics" presenting NINE THEOREMS OF CATASTROPHIC INCONSISTENCIES OF EINSTEIN GRAVITATION.

I'm sorry George, but trying to debate anything with these people or someone who thinks that the Universe is 7000 years old when astronomical observations tell us it is more like 13.6 billion, or that evolution hasn't been occurring is just a bit pointless.

Climate science

Climate science is a broad field but the critical, perhaps defining issue of our time is whether or not the climate is changing in a potentially catastrophic way due to man-made emissions.

In all fields of science that I'm familiar with, the best place to look for authoritative opinions are from expert researchers in universities and government laboratories. When you do that in you find the overwhelming majority are of the opinion that the Earth is getting warmer, that we're the cause of it and that unless we do something about it, the consequences could be catastrophic.

Does this mean that the "science is settled"?

Well no, but this doesn't mean that professional scientists should have to debate random bloggers who have mastered little more than "excel" or on the other hand that politicians should link every climatic extrema to global warming.

If politicians want to be more like scientists they should state that there is a very real probability that CO2 emissions are linked to growth in global temperatures, that this may lead to an increased frequency in climatic extrema, and that as a precaution, it might be wise to start reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels.

The economic impact, pace and incentives for any cuts are political issues more worthy of their time than correlations between CO2 concentrations and temperature, and different extrapolations of climate models into the future.

Brandis is correct to point out that as in the best of scientific traditions we need to be free to challenge scientific orthodoxy, and able to debate and defend our position, but this is best done in the scientific literature, not via blogs or in Parliament.

Explore further: Global warming's record-setting pace

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Global warming's record-setting pace

Feb 17, 2014

The pace of global warming over the last century has been about twice as rapid over land than over the oceans and will continue to be more dramatic going forward if emissions are not curbed. According to ...

Recommended for you

More safety on thermal drying plants of sewage sludge

Dec 23, 2014

Researchers from the Madariaga Lab at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid have carried out a series of trials to study the explosiveness of sludge on thermal drying plants of sewage sludge. The obtained ...

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1.9 / 5 (17) Apr 23, 2014
32 more years of "could be" and the laughable; "95%" certainty from the world of science and 32 more years of "believers" telling children that science "believes" THE END IS NEAR is unsustainable.
Deniers know science is not 100% certain, now you know.
But if "could be" is good enough to condemn your own children despite the science that says otherwise............................. who's the neocon?
benwelgoed
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
m3, for your enlightenment, look up ocean levels, say on wikipedia.
Their rise is solely the result of the oceans warming up. That rise hasn't stopped.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
" but this is best done in the scientific literature,"
What scientific literature permits such debate when 'indisputable' is used to describe AGW?
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2014
" but this is best done in the scientific literature,"
What scientific literature permits such debate when 'indisputable' is used to describe AGW?


Yep, although I completely accept AGW I think it would be career suicide to attempt a debate. I'd LIKE to see a debate. Then perhaps we could get around some of the red herrings constantly brought up by those who don't accept AGW.

In the end though this is about policy for both sides. Most people who accept AGW USE it to push a policy or political agenda. AGW is just a means to a political end. Those who don't accept it, in my view, do so because they don't like the political baggage that goes along with its acceptance.

IMO you're never going to get any real action on this issue unless and until you drop the policy (taxes, regulation, power grabs, etc) and focus on a technological solution (a REALISTIC one).
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
but this is best done in the scientific literature,

A technical response would be preferred, but I and others find the tools used to proclaim AGWism are too weak to justify the claims.
Of course this is why the political route was taken.
As I have read many times by AGWiites here, even they deny the quality of the models when they proclaim the science is too complex.
patrick_johnstone
2 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2014
The huge mistake the author has made is to paint anyone who has a slightly divergent view on global warming with the same brush. So anyone who has a slight reservation about any aspect of global warming theory or policy must also believe the moon-landing was faked, that Newton is wrong and Einstein was mistaken. But there is a whole middle ground of people whom you ignore who raise reasonable questions and criticisms about global warming science and proposed policy; Bjorn Lomborg, Matt Ridley, Nigel Lawson. These people are not loonies and you do need to take their argument seriously. By equating their views with loonies you are indeed shutting them out of the debate and confirming Brandis' claims.

"The economic impact, pace and incentives for any cuts are political issues more worthy of their time.."

Indeed, and this is precisely what most are skeptical about. What should we do about global warming and to what extent is it going to be dangerous, how much should we pay to reduce risk
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2014
Patrick, that is a pretty narrow and biased view of what is being said in this article; so much so, in fact, I suggest that you re-read it.

There is no "painting" as you suggest, and in fact I would argue that he is celebrating divergent views, not ignoring those who raise reasonable questions or objections. The whole point he is trying to make is that when the fact of "consensus" is discussed it is NOT that there is no room for reasonable debate or a disregard of evidence counter, but rather that it has become such a well researched and understood phenomena that almost all scientists in the filed of climate research accept it as fact, and that most scientists over all also accept it as fact.

That you are skeptical of the POLITICAL aspects has nothing what so ever to do with the science! THAT is the HUGE mistake denialists make; I don't like Al Gore so the science isn't real. It is a ridiculous, stupid argument!
yyz
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2014
"He goes on to claim that the accepted energy source of the Sun (nuclear fusion) rather than his own theory of a neutron star is some kind of conspiracy linked to "climategate"."

I LOL'd after reading that email and realizing it was from our own Dr Oliver K Manuel(aka Neutron repulsion guy). I remember him espousing that Kissinger-Mao conspiracy theory here on PhysOrg several times.
patrick_johnstone
2.2 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2014
"That you are skeptical of the POLITICAL aspects has nothing what so ever to do with the science! ".Maggnus, the debate is inherently political. Climate scientists say the best estimate for the equilibrium climate sensitivity is 3C. Thats fine, a perfectly reasonable scientific problem to tackle. There are of course huge uncertainties involved in estimating climate sensitivity, something climate scientists are themselves will readily admit. So we are left with having to make policy decisions today, based on predictions hundreds of years in the future. Furthermore there are claims that a given temperature rise will cause certain problems, but this is not a scientific question and climate scientists are ill equiped to know what society will be like in 2100 and therefore how it will be able to deal with a 3C temp rise. What risk does a 1-2C rise in temp by 2100 mean? How much money should we spend today on it,when we could spend it on hospitals, schools etc? These are the questions to ask
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2014
"He goes on to claim that the accepted energy source of the Sun (nuclear fusion) rather than his own theory of a neutron star is some kind of conspiracy linked to "climategate"."

I LOL'd after reading that email and realizing it was from our own Dr Oliver K Manuel(aka Neutron repulsion guy). I remember him espousing that Kissinger-Mao conspiracy theory here on PhysOrg several times.
I caught that too! He is still around, making his usual claims, although he has been removed from the faculty at BYU. I tried posting to his blog but he immediately deleted my comments and banned me. I consider it an honour lol!
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2014
Maggnus, the debate is inherently political
No, it's not. There is debate about the actions to be taken, and the means by which the levels can be reduced, which can become (and often is) politically charged, but the SCIENCE of global warming is fact-based, empirical and beyond political beliefs. That fact you don't like some stupid US politician has nothing to do with the science supporting the claim that the planet is warming as a result of CO2 loading of the atmosphere.

Why is it that every US denialist thinks a belief system has any role to play in the gathering of empirical evidence? Get it through your head, the US accounts for only about 19% of the population of the world. Most of us do not give a rat's ass that some incestuous hill-billy in Texas thinks the globe is warming because God is mad and therefore Obama's health care plan is warming the world!
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 23, 2014
but the SCIENCE of global warming is fact-based, empirical and beyond political beliefs.

No, it's not.
Not when the only tool you have are global climate simulations that can't simulate previous climate changes.
All AGWits are a collection of facts put together with computer model that is not accurately predicting current observation.
What predictions made 5 years ago has been validated by observations today?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2014
How many 'pro-science' AGWites like Maggy would support and advocate for dissolving the IPCC?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2014
How many 'pro-science' AGWites like Maggy would support and advocate for dissolving the IPCC?
Well unlike the blindly anti-socialist rhetoric of an idiot like this quoted moron, most "pro-science" people (unlike the anti-science displayed by this anarchist buffoon) recognized that the IPCC is a body put together only to review and summarize the science and outline proposals to politicians of the actions science says can be taken to mitigate or avoid the "worst case" scenarios identified by their review.

Only a stupidly and spectacularly ignorant ass like the quoted moron would not realize that the body that is the IPCC is responsible only to review the science that has been done and that they have no power to impose anything.

BTW - how's the weather in Texas these days?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2014
No, it's not.
@rygg
yes, the SCIENCE is... it is the political spectrum that takes it out of context or takes what it wants to drive an agenda. that is what politics is about. that is where your beef is... you really should be hanging out here: politicalforum.com
SCIENCE I based upon EMPIRICAL DATA and is apolitical. only personal perception can see politics in empirical data, and that is usually delusional or conspiratorial based and driven by a subconscious need for different things depending on the individual (such as: sociopaths need to dominate, control and manipulate, where others are mentally incapable of functionally living in reality)
the only tool you have
why are you ignoring the REAMS of empirical data?
all the studies? all the physics?

because you have no other argument than to politicize it, which then allows you to always be right no matter what the answer.

IOW - ya got nothin' other than political trash talk. and all that is subjective & irrelevant
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2014
"The schools, the universities, the government, the green NGOs, Hollywood and the MSM have invested billions of man hours and dollars trying to persuade them that climate change is the greatest threat of our age. But according to this survey, only 33 per cent are buying it - while another 37 per cent remain thoroughly unconvinced."
"all the latest research suggests that the importance of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been grossly exaggerated in the various computer models predicting catastrophic global warming, which is the reason why they have been so badly wrong-footed by real world data - such as the pause in the global warming since 1997.

Maybe the true, encouraging take home message from the survey should be this: most Americans know more about climate change than your average Nobel prizewinning biochemistry professor.

"
http://www.breitb...bal-warm
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2014
REAMS of empirical data

GIGO.
That's the problem with poorly understood climate models when they fail.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
Bloody good article...

"In all fields of science that I'm familiar with, the best place to look for authoritative opinions are from expert researchers in universities and government laboratories. When you do that in climate science you find the overwhelming majority are of the opinion that the Earth is getting warmer, that we're the cause of it and that unless we do something about it, the consequences could be catastrophic."

Substitute "radiative" for "Newtonian", jdswallow/enviro/rygg et al for "George" into this....

"In George's world, it would be quite reasonable for someone to state that they thought Newtonian physics was deeply flawed, that it was part of a world-wide conspiracy to defraud the tax-payer and that the scientists propagating it were "cultists". After all, that's all part of free speech right?

Oh, and many a true word is said in jest (the article).
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
In the end though this is about policy for both sides. Most people who accept AGW USE it to push a policy or political agenda. AGW is just a means to a political end. Those who don't accept it, in my view, do so because they don't like the political baggage that goes along with its acceptance.

modern.....

Please try (and all other "skeptics" on here) to separate the work-a-day scientists (from multi-disciplines) that do the science, from the politicians (both sides) that use it.

Attack the politicians ( or preferably vote them in/out).
Do not attack the science when *you* are ignorant of it.
Thank you.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2014
but this is best done in the scientific literature,

A technical response would be preferred, but I and others find the tools used to proclaim AGWism are too weak to justify the claims.



Just a guess here ryggy ....
But that may may be because you don't want it to be so due your political ideology and the small fact that you are staggeringly ignorant of the science.
Yes, we know, Venus is hot because it's closer to the Sun. FFS.
PS: I should tell that to Astronomical physicists ... they may not know.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
REAMS of empirical data

GIGO.
That's the problem with poorly understood climate models when they fail.

ryggy baby...
You do understand what the word "empirical" means?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
REAMS of empirical data

GIGO.
That's the problem with poorly understood climate models when they fail.

only poorly understood by YOU ryggy... not by scientists in the field.

ryggy baby...
You do understand what the word "empirical" means?
@runrig

apparently not...
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2014
@Maggnus

I'm 100% certain that the following statement is incorrect.

"the US accounts for only about 19% of the population of the world."

But.....

I'm 97% certain it was a typo so I gave you 5 stars anyway.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2014
@Maggnus

I'm 100% certain that the following statement is incorrect.

"the US accounts for only about 19% of the population of the world."
Lol you would be correct - more like 4.4% (http://wiki.answe...the_US). mea culpa.

But.....

I'm 97% certain it was a typo so I gave you 5 stars anyway.
Thanks!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2014
not by scientists in the field.

Did they predict the recent decline or do they explain the MWP and the LIA?
If you are going to have faith in a simulation that predicts doom and gloom in 100 years one must have evidence it is valid for the past several hundred years.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2014
not by scientists in the field.

Did they predict the recent decline or do they explain the MWP and the LIA?
If you are going to have faith in a simulation that predicts doom and gloom in 100 years one must have evidence it is valid for the past several hundred years.


ryggy baby...
Do you mean the same evidence that you have that your house is likely to be burned down or burgled in the next year?
But you have insurance for anyway?
It's a simple quantification of risk and the possible outcome if that risk happens.
Most sensible people have house insurance, which would mean you do not.
And no I'm not going into the fact that GCM's are an AVERAGED forecast and as such only give error bars - which the current ave global temps lies within. And the reasons why that is - it's just a wasted effort.
However for the neutrals on here ...

http://www.thegua...accurate
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2014
So, rummy acknowledges GCMs are not very good and can not account for past climate.
I would welcome an insurance company assessing the risk of 'climate change' and applying that data to insurance policies.
IPCC, carbon taxes, crony socialism is not an insurance policy.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2014
I would welcome an insurance company assessing the risk of 'climate change' and applying that data to insurance policies.


http://energy.lbl...surance/
http://www.triple...ndustry/
http://www.climat...dcat=858
http://www.theglo...page=all
https://www.genev...-subpage
http://www.pwc.co...ge.jhtml
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
So, rummy acknowledges GCMs are not very good and can not account for past climate.
I would welcome an insurance company assessing the risk of 'climate change' and applying that data to insurance policies.
IPCC, carbon taxes, crony socialism is not an insurance policy.


Why would you expect any forecast to follow exactly a temperature trend decades into the future? or even a year into the future?
What planet do you live on (in your head) my friend.
Why in the denialists world does everything have to be exact/100%/unequivocal/perfect.
Hasn't life taught you anything?
Never mind science?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
Just to confirm, rummy doesn't believe GCMs can predict future climate, just as Freeman Dyson states.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
m3, for your enlightenment, look up ocean levels, say on wikipedia.
Their rise is solely the result of the oceans warming up. That rise hasn't stopped.

This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.

http://nzclimates...levl.pdf
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2014
Just to confirm, rummy doesn't believe GCMs can predict future climate, just as Freeman Dyson states.


READ MY LIPS ...

" follow exactly a temperature trend"
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2014
Just to confirm, rummy doesn't believe GCMs can predict future climate, just as Freeman Dyson states.

Brethren we are gathered here in the face of our lord Dyson.

Let us bow down to the great God of climate science
And verily we shall take of his word
And dismiss all that be discovered not in thy name
They shall be the science the power and the climate
For ever and ever.
Amen

FFS.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2014
Just to confirm, rummy doesn't believe GCMs can predict future climate, just as Freeman Dyson states.

Brethren we are gathered here in the face of our lord Dyson.

Let us bow down to the great God of climate science
And verily we shall take of his word
And dismiss all that be discovered not in thy name
They shall be the science the power and the climate
For ever and ever.
Amen

FFS.

Now rummy has FAITH in GCMs to predict climate for the next 100 years?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2014
Just to confirm, rummy doesn't believe GCMs can predict future climate, just as Freeman Dyson states.

Brethren we are gathered here in the face of our lord Dyson.

Let us bow down to the great God of climate science
And verily we shall take of his word
And dismiss all that be discovered not in thy name
They shall be the science the power and the climate
For ever and ever.
Amen

FFS.

Now rummy has FAITH in GCMs to predict climate for the next 100 years?

I'm sure the Lord Dyson will see us right ryggy.
Amen.

ScooterG
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
"people do have a right to be bigots"

I like the way this guy (Brandis) thinks.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
"people do have a right to be bigots"

I like the way this guy (Brandis) thinks.


Absolutely they do.
Just as people have the right to be stupid.

But ... does either of those things aid us to add to the sum total of human knowledge?
ScooterG
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
"people do have a right to be bigots"

I like the way this guy (Brandis) thinks.


Absolutely they do.
Just as people have the right to be stupid.

But ... does either of those things aid us to add to the sum total of human knowledge?


And people in America have the right to free speech - unless of course you happen to be protesting the federal government on a cattle ranch in Nevada, or if you're a white businessman who owns an NBA team.

And disregard the fact that the white man has a girlfriend who is half Mexican half Neegro.

The important thing is that liberals feel good about their hypocritical selves.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2014
"people do have a right to be bigots"
I like the way this guy (Brandis) thinks.

Absolutely they do.
Just as people have the right to be stupid.
But ... does either of those things aid us to add to the sum total of human knowledge?

And people in America have the right to free speech - unless of course you happen to be protesting the federal government on a cattle ranch in Nevada, or if you're a white businessman who owns an NBA team.
And disregard the fact that the white man has a girlfriend who is half Mexican half Negro.
The important thing is that liberals feel good about their hypocritical selves.

Ditto people in the UK have a right to free speech.
It is a qualitative thing my friend.
Free speech can be used for good or ill.
The bigoted hate/fear others who differ - and will hold the same prejudices no matter what evidence to the contrary.
If anything good comes from stupid people it is only by chance.
You wear your bigotry/stupidity like a badge
ScooterG
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014

Ditto people in the UK have a right to free speech.
It is a qualitative thing my friend.
Free speech can be used for good or ill.
The bigoted hate/fear others who differ - and will hold the same prejudices no matter what evidence to the contrary.
If anything good comes from stupid people it is only by chance.
You wear your bigotry/stupidity like a

I see...so any speech that runs contrary to a liberals' belief system should be banned, and the only moral beliefs that should be promoted and edified are those of liberals.

Your arrogance is nauseating.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2014

Ditto people in the UK have a right to free speech.
It is a qualitative thing my friend.
Free speech can be used for good or ill.
The bigoted hate/fear others who differ - and will hold the same prejudices no matter what evidence to the contrary.
If anything good comes from stupid people it is only by chance.
You wear your bigotry/stupidity like a

I see...so any speech that runs contrary to a liberals' belief system should be banned, and the only moral beliefs that should be promoted and edified are those of liberals.

Your arrogance is nauseating.

Try reading what I SAID WILL YOU...
I said you can say/do whatever you want (why is that wanting it banned?)
It's just that bigotry and stupidity are entirely negative, achieve nothing and are an affront to humanity..
Now that's nauseating, my friend,,,
And you've just exhibited it by not comprehending my post.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2014
"You wear your bigotry/stupidity like a badge"

I defend the 1st Amendment and for that you call me a stupid bigot??

LOL...liberalism is emotion-based drivel.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2014
any speech that runs contrary to a liberals' belief system should be banned,

It IS banned in UK.
How does this add to the sum of human knowledge:
"A candidate in the South East European elections has been arrested after making a speech quoting from a book by Winston Churchill about Islam."

Read more: http://dailycalle...0NfWJ7nU

There is NO free speech in UK and in the US, free speech is being attacked as the owner of the LA Clippers is being stoned by those with just a much racist sin.
barakn
5 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2014
There is NO free speech in UK and in the US, free speech is being attacked as the owner of the LA Clippers is being stoned by those with just a much racist sin.

Bull. He signed a contract with the NBA and agreed to maintain a certain level of decorum. IF you don't believe people can enter into contracts with clauses likes that then you are against the Free Market and Capitalism. And outside of the NBA, the people that are "stoning" him are actually using their freedom of speech to express their disapproval of his vile character. What is is about conservatives that causes them to fly the flags of free speech and capitalism only until it gets one of their own in trouble?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2014
maintain a certain level of decorum.

What 'level of decorum'?
The entire NBA is a cesspool of 'decorum'.
Why was the Clipper owner attacked NOW when everyone in the league knew who and what he was? Those who played/play for the Clippers took his money and said nothing.
their freedom of speech to express their disapproval of his vile character.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2014
"You wear your bigotry/stupidity like a badge"

I defend the 1st Amendment and for that you call me a stupid bigot??

LOL...liberalism is emotion-based drivel.


Comprehension my friend.....
I didn't call you anything.
i replied to a post that stated that there is a right to be a bigot.
I agreed and said that it was so also to be stupid.
No names mentioned - and went on to say that both things did not add to the sum of human knowledge and were entirely negative.
I don't have the 1st amendment to adhere too so that doesn't enter into my calculations. I apply common sense and good human values.
Make of that what you will.
And I think I know what you will.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2014
"You wear your bigotry/stupidity like a badge"

I defend the 1st Amendment and for that you call me a stupid bigot??

LOL...liberalism is emotion-based drivel.
You ARE a stupid bigot.

Actually, now that I reread your post in this thread, it is apparent that you are a bigot who is stupid.

Runrig, you should apologize for mis-characterizing him.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2014
"Bull. He signed a contract with the NBA and agreed to maintain a certain level of decorum."

You know this for a fact? `Cuz I've heard nothing mentioned about breach of contract.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
"You wear your bigotry/stupidity like a badge"

I defend the 1st Amendment and for that you call me a stupid bigot??

LOL...liberalism is emotion-based drivel.
You ARE a stupid bigot.

Actually, now that I reread your post in this thread, it is apparent that you are a bigot who is stupid.

Runrig, you should apologize for mis-characterizing him.


Yeh, I know Maggnus ... it was "hidden" irony.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.